Mitt Romney, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains his view of the status of Iran’s nuclear program and how the Obama Administration has dealt with it:
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report this week makes clear what I and others have been warning about for too long: Iran is making rapid headway toward its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Successive American presidents, including Barack Obama, have declared such an outcome to be unacceptable. But under the Obama administration, rhetoric and policy have been sharply at odds, and we’re hurtling toward a major crisis involving nuclear weapons in one of the most politically volatile and economically significant regions of the world.
What crisis? Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And all the rest in the region are subject to American nuclear hegemony. How does one more nuclear weapon, one way or another, translate into a crisis? Well, there is that “economically significant regions of the world” parameter I suppose. But that’s only a crisis if one believes that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian ayatollahs would be leveraged to economic advantage. How exactly, could Iran leverage anything to its economic advantage vis-a-vis the American people who would be asked to die, bleed and pay for Romney’s war? It might be a crisis for American capitalists, but really, does anyone care whether a bunch of American capitalists might be detrimentally affected by an Iranian nuke? American capitalists care not a whit about America. They simply need American military might for their continued expansion.
Israel doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, though Israel certainly thinks it is in the interest of all humanity that they possess them. I wonder, is this part of Romney’s Mormonism edging through? The fetish American Christians have for Israel is mysterious. Forget all that allegorical Revelation nonsense–the Revelation was written as a polemic against Rome. Who might John see as Rome nowadays? Besides, do the Christians not get that Christ was killed by the Jews they now so adoringly support?
What will Romney unilaterally do to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons if elected President?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.
I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents. I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region. These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
So Romney is advising the ayatollahs to prepare for war if they want peace? Isn’t that what they’re doing, by attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon?
How much more might military assistance to Israel be expanded? Upwards of $5 billion per year flows to Israel now. If Iran attacked Israel, either conventionally or with nukes, the US stands fast and ready to avenge and defeat her attackers. Israel, for its part, operates like an American capitalist. It seeks American military support for its prerogatives, but expects to give nothing in return. Why the US continues at this exploitative game of the Israelis is beyond me.
The Middle East is a politically volatile place for two reasons pertinent to the US: American support for Israel and American dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If America unilaterally left the Middle East to its own devices, and bit the economic bullet such that it had no longer to rely on every towel-headed mullah that has maneuvered his way to despotism to fuel its economy, both America and the Middle East would be better off in the long run.
This is obviously not going to happen. The US will continue in place in the Middle East until it is no longer able. With Romney’s straightforward warmongering, perhaps the American people can use the presidential election as a referendum on war. Elect Romney, and war is practically guaranteed, in short order. Reject Romney and the imperial expansion by drone assassination continues apace, but perhaps no full-scale combat is in the offing.
Romney’s editorial appeared just where one might imagine it would. It could have been written by the staff at Review and Outlook on the Wall Street Journal. Those guys are experts at being righteously indignant at the perceived slights and threats posed by living in a world that’s not completely subjugated by American capitalists. They stand not for freedom, and the constitutional principles upon which the American republic was founded, but for the relentless expansion of American empire. They justify their stand by their proclamations that America is great because she is good, and that all they want is for more people to enjoy the bounty of her beneficence. That’s about the same argument Rome used before embarking on war with Carthage, ultimately burning it to the ground.
Romney’s ploy may help him get elected. The US, mired in a seemingly endless economic slump at the proletariat level, needs a reason to feel good about itself again. Its people need a common enemy to provide a common purpose that will bind them again to the idea of America before it slips away. The fever for war is gaining momentum. What else is there for an empire to do except expand? Watch how adoringly veterans are treated tomorrow. Their sacrifices are already mythologized to the point of absurdity. Indeed, Romney’s warmongering might just strike the right chord to get him elected.